to me if you have a conviction then just live it out but if it's authentic, we will see it in you. if it's not then don't tell me how to live. dolby al gore and say that the oceans are about to overtake the coast and then build a 20,000-foot home right there on the coast. ..

"the communicators" is on location. this week we'll look at some of the new technologies coming out from ces international and talk to policymakers as well. this is "the communicators" on c-span from las vegas. well now we want to introduce you to ulf ewaldsson with the erickson corporation senior vice president group chief technology officer. mr. e waldson, before we get into what you do, just want to make the statement that erickson is not the consumer product corporation that it was a few years ago is that a fair statement? >> guest: absolutely. we are not in consumer at all. but being here at the consumer electronics show in las vegas you can really see how relevant networks, which we are doing, are becoming to just basically, every consumer product out here.

>> host: for a while people owned erickson phones. do you even manufacture them anymore? >> guest: no, we don't. >> host: so a more of a business to business type? >> guest: we are the global leader in infrastructure for networks where we provide both infrastructure and item come services and services for operators, so that's basically the business that we're in. >> host: what is ericsson demonstrating here at ces? what are they putting on the floor? >> guest: first of all, the main message for us here is to make sure everyone who is out here is really showing their different products their consumer devices which can be connected over very good networks. of course, we are showing lt products the latest and greatest within the wireless systems for carriers, but also to make sure we can be relevant in terms of providing and talking about where these technologies will go for the

future. one of the key topics here is going to be 5g. it is something that the whole industry is talking about. and we just concluded a panel here actually on 5g where there was great interest particularly from many, many aspects of government which we're very excited about. >> host: why is government interested? >> guest: of course, it's very important to regulate this in a good way and to be able to facilitate innovation for other industries. as 5g is different from 4g and the earlier generations of mobile networks which were more built for if you will the operator community. already in 4g now we see that many, many other industries are starting to want to use these networks. in other words, they want to use mobility, and over just the last years the name of the street is really to tray to build in mobility -- try to build in mobility in many devices, applications and so forth and that in itself is going to accelerate and become even more important in 5g. >> host: and so is that where 5g

differentiates itself from fourth generation? mobility? >> guest: partly. that's a bit of complex answer, so let me try to, plain that to you. 5g is more than just another network, it's an evolution of 4g into a network that is much more responsive, much faster a network really built for machine-type communication as it's being named. in ericsson we talk a lot about something we call a network society, and the network society is a society where everything that can benefit from having a connection would actually have one. we put a vision forward in 2009 in barcelona in the trade show that was for devices in 2020 which has caught on very well in the world. and that i think opened people's mind that the mobile industry is not limited to the smartphones and devices that we

carry around personally. it also is a great technology to be able to build a better society based on those kinds of technologies. >> host: well, on ericsson's home page there was a recent blog post about a connected world is just the beginning. what does that mean? >> guest: well if i should interpret it, i think that the world of connections is something that we've been talking about for years. but the beginning means that that we're building a platform. we're building a foundation for other industries to innovate on top of. that's why the networks that we're building now is becoming so much more an innovation platform for the whole society. i sometimes say that if you look at regulation in different countries, for instance you come from a situation where voice was regulated by tariffs and competition was regulated on voice and how that could play out in different kinds of remarks. now we're moving into a regulator role being more of an

enabler of innovation. because you want to make sure that those networks are being built with the kind of technologies that makes other industries able to use them. and then they can grow their opportunity, transform their products. i think already here at ces we can see so many connected cars. i've just walked here in the preshow -- it hasn't opened yet, it'll open tomorrow -- and you can see cars tomorrow. most likely they're all being connected. and you can see a car becoming a software product. and if a car becomes a software product, it has to be connected because so many things that you'll be able to do with that software in the car it's relying on that connect it. and, therefore, the networks need to be -- connectivity. and, therefore, the networks need to be extremely reliable safe, and compute and do storage of different applications that's being run in that automobile. in that sense that's an example of what i mean of innovation outside on top of the network. >> host: so what we've been calling the internet of things. >> guest: the internet of

things, i think that's really what it's about. and we will see the internet change dramatically with this evolution. it wasn't from the beginning built to do this, but we will see an internet where computing, storage, security imaging, those kind of functions will move to the edge of the network, much closer to where the generation of data is being done and where the data is being consumed. in other words we don't need to send all the bits from a consumption point new the entire network up to -- through the entire network up to a country and wait for a result to come back. we're going to see a network that's going to be transformed to do that computing storing at the edge of the network. we need to make that as an industry simple enough for others to build application on it. i think that's going to be the big challenge. >> host: ulf ewaldsson we've been talking about the cloud now for several years. has it been a successful

transition? >> guest: the cloud technology is such as now many, many years on its turfs and how long it's been in the market and the i.t. industry, for the i.t. industry it's been a tremendous transformation. basically, you removed a lot of the hardware and software from enterprises out into central locations. at the same time, that has led to a big technology change. so technologies like stm and virtualization, the split between hardware and software in these big data centers is the technology that has made these data centers very, very efficient. and that kind of technology we can now incorporate also into networks. so we will use cloud technology and we are already starting to use cloud technology to transform big networks into being much much more efficient than in the past. if you just look at stm

technology, it's one of those very very disruptive factors to networks that really will are transform the way you introduce new services the way you test things, the way you roll out new software which is a very big change for many of our customers, for operators. >> host: is 5g being used anywhere yet in the world? >> guest: no, no no. >> host: how far are we? >> guest: i think we're about five years ahead if you look at the way that this industry operates. if we go back to the 1g, 2g when we paraded 1g, we didn't know it was 1g, it was just the first one. but after that it takes us a number of years to be able to collaborate t in the industry to work at the innovation, to jointly define what the vision is for the next generation. and that's the beauty of the telecom industry. we have an innovation regime that is creating a corporation if you will, between many, many competitors to be able to put in innovation proposals.

and we're basing that on an ip origin that we call france which is helping us cross license between the different countries and to be able to not build it on a proprietary technology which will make it much less scaleable and also lead to a much slower uptake of the technology. i think that's one of the reasons why gsm, for instance, has had this enormous uptake as well as 3g and 4g now where we're reached more than seven billion subscriptions in the world passing between '14 and '15. >> host: as group chief technology officer for ericsson, are you thinking about 6g already? >> guest: one should never say that there will not be next generation. i think the ambition level that we've put forward now for 5g is certainly going to last us a very long time. and the ambition is this will lead and we'll be able to evolve it for a long time. we're not going to build a network on top of the older

network. we're actually going to make it an evolution of the existing networks. if you look at lt technology, it will serve us very well in the lower frequencies for quite a while. and we will be able to evolve that forward and forward into reaching something that will eventually be approved as 5g. i don't know if you know, but the itu is the ultimate approval that's the international telecommunication union which is part of united nations, are the ones that set the final standard and say this is now 5g. so i think we will see an evolution into getting that stamp on the paper. >> host: from your participation at ericsson, what are some of the trends that you're. watching for, and what are some of the changes that you see coming in five to ten years in telecommunications? >> guest: well, i think the most important trend if you look at it is really the mobility trend overall. i think we are amazed that ericsson being the leader in the

mobile space, how many companies that have never thought mobility would be realm haven't to their products -- relevant to their products are now saying this is at the core of their strategy. that's one very important trend and we're measuring and following that very clearly. we're publishing a mobility report where every quarter we publish all of our mobility. the level it reaches, all the numbers, how many smartphones that were sold in the last quarter and so forth. that's a very, very important trend that we follow. apart from that we're, of course following consumer trends. being here in las vegas at the consumer electronics show we can see that many of the gadgets that are being launched are early prototypes of things that become normal things wearables was very big here a couple of years ago at the initial stage, and today i think many people all over the united states, all over the world are using wearables on a daily basis. it's not being strange at all.

and it's connected through their mobile phone into the network providing all kinds of data about themselves. >> host: advantage or disadvantage to be in sweden? >> guest: well, i'm very seldom in sweden, so how would i know? [laughter] basically you're in so many countries all over the world. i spend a lot of time in the u.s., of course. i think we're excited at ericsson to see also the important role that the u.s. market is playing for us. first of all, we have done very well over here. we have great traction with the operators over here. we've seen spot leadership in many of the operators who are really using our technology to the fullest and we're also very excited that the u.s., of course, is the home of many of leading internet companies. and we can see that collaboration between the internet companies, the over-the-top play, the if you will, the operators and the computer industry as well as the media industry which is very,

very u.s.-focused all over the world, actually, and being exported. one of the big export products of the u.s. and that technology mix from a technology point of view is very important now as we're moving into 5g. so we're hoping and we're promoting and we're working hard to make sure that the u.s. can take a leading position in the way of guiding the rest of the world into 5g as well. >> host: but when it comes to telecommunications, aren't a hot t of the protocols and icann as an example aren't they becoming more and more international and less u.s.-centric? >> guest: they absolutely are. they absolutely are. but it's important to always have leading customers, to have leading visionaries, if you will, who are able to guyed the industry and so forth -- guide the industry and so forth. and i think here many of the operators here in the u.s. have an important role to play. and i think that then other countries will pick up on that. i'm glad to see also that

naturally ideas about the future evolution of networks in terms of providing better services more secure services, faster services is happening here. >> host: ulf e waldson, one of the issues we've been hearing about recently is security privacy, hacking, etc. is this going to get an international response rather than a kind of a piece-by-piece response? >> guest: i think both. first of all, we're really seeing now a change from just hobby hacking, being able to create damage into national security issues between nations and whatever it might be. i think the security issue is of utmost concern because it can limit the innovation that we're hoping to see from so many industries here at ces in las vegas. it can really damage innovation. it can really damage the opportunities of so many things that we wanted to happen if we

can't make it safe if we can't make it secure. then on the private side, it's the same issue. i think many people say we have recently done research by something called ericsson consumer lab where we have seen in reports that more than 60% are concerned about privacy issues and surveillance issues on the internet. at the same time, the usage just increases. and i think it's a dual-edged sword. we have to educate people, we need to make sure that people understand their behaviors, but as well as operators and industry payers taking a responsible role in making sure that the networks are safe, making sure that people should feel safe by using these applications on the networks and be able to gradually -- and back to your comment -- it's going to be a gradual approach as it is in z any security matters. each on safety of buildings and so forth. you increase the alarm levels as

the press levels goes out. >> host: now, has the government of sweden taken a different approach to security and privacy issues than the u.s. government? >> guest: i wouldn't say that. i think there is a very strong global debate going on on security issues, and now we have a world economic forum in davos coming up, for instance where i think internet security and the ability to do business globally is going to be one very important topic. i think there is -- this debate is very global today, and i hope that it can continue to be so the response can be global. because, after all, the security issues that are on the internet and so forth are not limited to nations in any way. they are certainly global. >> host: give us a snapshot of ericsson. size headquarters? >> guest: right. we're about 114,000 employees and we spend $5 billion u.s. in r&d every year so it's a heavy

portion of our turnover. we turn over around $30 billion u.s. we are the global leader in mobile networks but also in services. we are also doing heavy investment in media, and we have become the global leader in i.t. systems, for instance, which is very connected to our strong network position. and we're a company who continues to try to make sure to provide our customers with the very best solutions for the future. >> host: what's the importance of a show like this? >> guest: for us it's an increasing importance. we can see that what used to be an industry that was a bit more unward-looking -- inward-looking where we were sitting down and standardizing the future of networks and thinking that we would innovate something great and people would use them typically the telephone

services, if you will, of the past is moving to something where every industry in the world wants to use these networks to be able to provide their services to be able to benefit and build their new business on. and if they do that, they put the requirements of the future of the networks. so ces for us is becoming the most important show. it's here that we can understand what the innovation power is on top of these networks that we want to provide for the future. >> host: so many telecommunications companies work with other companies don't they? it's not just ericsson doing its own thing like you just said. >> guest: no, we do. one watermark of our industry if you will is the good innovation cooperation that there is. and then we compete as much as we possibly can on building this equipment. and the reason why we have to do that is a certain level of standardization is needed to be able to reach the global success. after all, a phone that comes from australia or that come from

china or comes from any other -- korea, whatever, works on any network totally. and i think that is very important. and we will continue to defend that io -- ipo regime that makes that possible. >> host: ulf ewaldsson in your view, what could impede telecommunications' advance? what could prevent, prevent or slow down telecommunications advancements? could it be government regulation, could i t be this or that? >> guest: well, one thing that certainly can slow it down is if we get a very big fragmentation. and fragmentation would be that we are not able to standardize things if it becomes a proprietary technology, the opportunity of using this global mobility platform that we built is fragmented and becomes challenged by a number of smaller, smaller scale things

that doesn't build this big innovation platform. that would certainly slow down the industry dramatically. it would make it less of a possibility for the innovation power that many of the companies here at ces are expecting. >> host: are people doing that? is it becoming more and more proprietary, or are companies cooperating? >> guest: well, i think -- i am very positive, and if i look at the way we are working with 5g now, i think we can see that there is a big big willingness to cooperate and work around putting a standard together that would be a truly global standard. and as i said, it needs leadership particularly with markets that are very advanced like the u.s. market, but it's also to make sure that other nations adopt it and put it in place. we need frequencies that are global otherwise that would fragment industries. there were different industries in every country, and people would not be able to roam with their devices. >> host: ulf ewaldsson senior vice president group chief

technology officer of erics soften. this is "the communicators" on c-span. >> guest: thank you. >> host: we wanted to talk with kelly ahuja who is with cisco. what's your position and what do you do? >> guest: i'm the senior vice president for service provider products and solutions at cisco. >> host: and what does that mean? >> guest: so that means within the company i own the strategy for the entire service provider business, and also i drive the portfolio in terms of where we invest, in what areas with service providers, work with them globally and work with these partners, our service provider partners to help them achieve their business goals and objectives. >> host: what is a service provider? >> guest: that's an interesting question because traditionally, it's also been one that has a physical infrastructure, for example, a tradition alltel coe or wireless operator, but more and more we're starting to see msos or cable operators are

service providers but even now is starting to emerge a new breed of providers of services who don't necessarily have their own infrastructure. and, you know, you could probably argue that netflix is a provider of service. or others like that. uber could be a provider of service. now, they're all offering services but without owning the infrastructure. >> host: if somebody has comcast at their home or they have netflix or a cell phone, do they have a cisco product somewhere in that line? >> guest: well, i'm happy to say, absolutely. anywhere you go in the world any operator you speak to whether they're a cable operator, a mobile carrier or a wireline carrier typically they will have cisco somewhere in the network. this is because we've been known to be the internet company, the company that builds out the internet. we've been responsible for building out the internet for the last 30 years. we've just celebrated our 30th anniversary as a company and started by interconnecting companies and we made those bridges across calling the internet connecting those networks together.

>> host: so is that becoming archaic, though, to have something connected via the internetsome. >> guest: actually, not really. if you think about where the internet has been the internet s.t.a.r.t.ed with this thing -- started with this thing people needed to get to by dial-up connections. we brought that from being somewhere to your home. we brought that from your home to every device you carry around. the next stage is about taking it from all these mobile devices to thing, to information and connecting not just people, but things with people information with people and processes with people and things so we can actually create a whole what we call internet of everything. so i think we're at the early stages of building out that internet of everything. >> host: well, as the senior vp of sis owe, mr. ahuja, talk about how you live the internet of everything. [laughter] >> guest: that's an interesting question. jim was laughing with me because -- >> host: jim, your press person. >> guest: jim, my press person because i'm carrying four

devices; two mobile phone, an pad and a handy-dandy watch. my laptop is in the hotel. we've got some demonstrations for our customers that we're showing how a connected life could work. look at change to having their home connected to a person's mobile device something we're working on, and not only that connecting not to your mobile devices as well. we can connect not just a family but also your kids. so if mom's at work she knows that johnny -- who's on his way to, on school bus to home -- gets dropped off at home, she can unlock the door for johnny, or johnny can lock the door himself using his mobile device. he can get inside the home, mom can figure out she needs to pick up pizza on the way, and if johnny's brought a friend home mom knows that, and she knows this person's allergic to maybe lactose intolerant, she can bring a gluten-free pizza on her

way, get it home at the same time she's coming home. so all that could happen with people information things all being connected to the internet. >> host: do you feel a little bit burdened by carrying four devices and wearing one on your wrist on top of that? [laughter] >> guest: ideally, i would love to get just one, but technology's moving at such a rapid pace because every time we turn around there's a new device. just look at this show. i'm excited to figure out what new is coming up. you know, it's going to be great for us to find more devices that connect to the interwith net. in fact, we're finding in 2018 there'll be over four billion global internet users which is two and a half more than what we have today in 2013. so it's tremendous growth that still has to happen, and all of these things that are getting connected is going to be massively beneficial to the entire industry and economy. >> host: mr. ahuja, your boss -- ceo of cisco, john claimers -- chambers recently said mobility and i.t. will be everywhere, in

all areas. and companies like allstate, walmart will start calling themselves technology. >> guest: absolutely. they're going to be calling themselves technology players, and they're going to embrace technology to either drive productivity inside their country or be able to drive growth for their companies. every company's becoming a digital company. if you talk to any one of the ceos or cios out there they're focused on becoming a digital company, and they see the internet of everything as a way to connect to their employees but also their customers and drive loyalty, drive growth in their business but also lower their costs to improve productivity. >> host: what exactly is cisco unveiling here? >> guest: so we're -- >> host: if anything. >> guest: yes, absolutely. so we're clearly focused on driving exactly that with our customers who are service providers. we're talking to them about internet of everything or ioe so, for example video.

video services have evolved from being just inside the home. a tablet or even a laptop not just your television screen. so cloud-based solutions for video, cloud in general, how cloud can be leveraged to deliver new services but also to lower the cost structure and also talking about solutions as well as other areas as well. business services. >> host: one of the things cisco has been looking at or working on is the intercloud. what exactly is that? ing. >>. >> guest: yes. great question. cisco was taking multiple networks and interconnecting them together. we realized that the world of clouds is emerging very rapidly. but it's not going to be one cloud. it's going to be public cloud and private clouds and other clouds all coexisting.

so it's going to be a hybrid cloud environment. so what we felt was needed was a way to interconnect those clouds much like we interconnected all the networks. we're doing connections of these clouds together with constructive inner cloud. an inner cloud is a great construct that's catching on really fast. we've signed up over 50 partners today who have a global footprint with their global data centers, and it's now like -- the explanation i can give you is it's almost like an airline i'll use the star lines analogy. star lines with a bunch of airlines coming tailgate and offering a -- coming together and offering a global service to their customers or clients. intercloud does that for providers, service providers, our partners and even enterprises being able to offer services globally. >> host: recently on "the communicators" we talked to a guest about the future of the internet, and one of the things that she said was that companies and corporations are

overbuilding the internet now. they're becoming over top providers for more security. is that something that cisco is involved in? >> guest: absolutely. as you think about the internet of everything where people, devices, information and process are all going to be requiring a connection, privacy and security become absolutely essential tools. and if you notice we've been making big moves in security. we acquired a company called source fire last year, and if you lack at the trends of how we're doing in our security business growing quite rapidly. so we're absolutely moving into this area because our customers are saying that's going to be pivotal for the success of everything. that's absolutely key. >> host: now, if you have a government contract, do you -- does the government push technology, or does it more or less follow? >> guest: that's an interesting thing, because in many lawyers the government inknow vases -- in many areas the government ine no sates, in many areas they

follow. so i think they do both. >> host: is the government a major contract for cisco? >> guest: it's a percentage of our business, yes, but not the significant part of our business. >> host: well, in washington one of the issues that's being talked about this congress is the issue of intellectual property. is that something cisco would like to see action on? >> guest: well, we believe that to be able to innovate, to be successful as a company you have to innovate. and if you innovate, you have to build an intellectual property portfolio. we've been building that portfolio for many years over 30 years that we've been around. we're filing patents every month and every day of our week as our edge jeers inknow vase -- engineers innovate. and it's been a great effort for us, and our edge jeers -- engineers are doing a great job. >> host: a couple final questions. icann moving into an international platform, less u.s. influence. is that something cisco takes a position on? >> guest: icann, i'm sure we have teams that look at it.

i'm not familiar with it -- >> host: it's not one that you work on. okay. >> guest: i'm not aware of it. >> host: are we in a tech boom right now? >> guest: well -- [laughter] i can tell you that the industry is changing quite rapidly. and there's multiple technology transitions that are affecting the whole, the entire industry. everyone from enterprise or a business to consumer to a service provider. and there are multiple technology transitions and business transitions that are happening. does that create a boom? for some areas you may consider it to be a boom. for other areas you may consider it to be perhaps, a very good destructive force to drive. so it could -- depending upon which lens you look at, you may actually determine whether it's a boom or not, but i leave that to the industry pundits to figure out. not to me. >> host: are we in a disruption? >> guest: definitely in a disruptive time in our industry,

absolutely. this is a perfect time for cisco, because cisco thrives on market transitions. if you look at our history that's where we've caught the market at the bend and really accelerated. so now with the internet of everything, we're actually, i feel, at this market transition and inflection point which i think plays to our favor because this is where enterprises or businesses who are going to be adopting operational technology or becoming digital companies and working with service providers to be able to connect that, that's the area that we actually have a strength in. and that ooh's a perfect -- that's a perfect sweet spot for cisco. >> host: and kelly ahuja is the senior vice president for cisco, thank you for your time. >> guest: thank you. >> host: constituters is in las vegas -- "the communicators" is in will las vegas for the ces show largest trade show in the world. if you're interested in see aing more of our programming go to c-span.org/communicators.

>> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a mix service by your -- as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> in about half an hour remarks from nsa director mike rogers at a cybersecurity conference. he'll be joined by assistant attorney general john carlin and national security analyst peter bergin at this event hosted by the new america foundation. see it live starting at nine a.m. eastern here on c-span2. and on c-span3 the president's task force on 2 isst century -- 21st century policing holds its second public meeting here in washington. the task force was established by executive order following the controversial ferguson, missouri, police shooting of unarmed teenager michael brown and seeks to improve the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. see it live at nine a.m. eastern. the senate returns to session today from its presidents day recess with the house set to

gavel in on tuesday. for an update on what's ahead in even chamber we spoke with a capitol hill reporter. >> host: congress comes back from its presidents day recess and we're joined by elise foley with huffington post. she covers congress and politics. your article in huffington post talks about the standstill on the measure the department of homeland security measure including the federal court order this week in texas. what is the latest as the senate comes back? >> guest: well, so they've been at an impasse for weeks. they are still at an impasse in congress over this funding bill. basically, the problem is that republicans say that they won't support funding the department of homeland security unless there's a component to end these executive actions taken by the president that would, you know, give work permits and the ability to stay to undocumented immigrants. republicans say they can't support anything that doesn't block those, democrats say they

won't support anything that does include measures to block these actions. so it's really a point where both sides have really dug in their heels, and it's tough to say how it's going to work out. i think the likeliest thing at this point is they end up kicking it down the road doing another continuing resolution and we have the this fight again later in this year. >> host: the federal judge in this week halting those, at least temporarily the implementation of some of those executive orders, and late this week the white house saying they will seek a stay of that at the department of justice. how does the texas order complicate the debate in the senate? >> guest: well, i think there's some potential that could be used to break the stalemate. so if republicans were to say, okay, these things are not going forward anyway maybe we can support some sort of clean dhs bill that would fund the department, you know, in the meantime while these orders aren't taking place.

>> guest: so at the moment, it appears that it's not necessarily going to help matters, this injunction is not going to change much about the dhs fight. remind us of the deadline congress faces and what's ahead on monday when the senate returns. >> guest: so the deadline is february 27th. they need to do something by then or else the dhs will face a shutdown. on monday the nat is going to vote again -- the senate is going to vote again on this bill. it's failed billion times before -- multiple times before because democrats have blocked it. they're expected to block it again, i don't think anything has changed on that front. but sort of the idea is to

continue showing the house that the senate can't pass the house's bill. so ultimately, they're going to have to come up with some type of plan b the if they want to pass -- if they want to pass some sort of funding for dhs next week. let's look at another big priority the nomination of loretta lynch to be the attorney general. she's had her hearing before the judiciary committee, and we understand a vote is likely in the committee next week. how many republicans will it take to pass her, and what's that look like in terms of passage in the senate? >> guest: well, there are several republicans who have indicated support for lynch; orrin hatch jeff flake, a few others. so it looks like she might be able to get out of committee. the problem is whether republicans would try and block her on the floor. you have people like ted cruz and jeff sessions who for the same reason that we were talking about before with the issue of executive alaskas on immigration -- actions on immigration are saying they won't allow the loretta lynch nomination to move forward.

so there is potential that if they wanted to pass her and confirm her in the full senate, they would have to do that, mcconnell would have to do that by relying on mostly democrats, you know rather than mostly republicans. and that would be, certainly something sort of awkward. but right now it's looking like there are a decent number of republicans who are not willing to support her for that reason because she supports those executive actions. >> host: a look at some of what's ahead in congress from elise foley who covers congress and more for huffington post. you can follow her reporting on twitter @elisefoley. thanks so much. >> thank you. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. not only are there 43 new republicans and 15 new democrats in the house and 12 new republicans and 1 new democrat in the senate there's also 108 women in congress including the first african-american republican in the house and the first woman veteran in the senate. keep track of the members of

congress using congressional chronicle on c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has lots of useful information there including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. new congress, best access on c-span c-span2 c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next, secretary of state john kerry and u.n. secretary-general ban ki-moon speak to international leaders at the white house's summit on violent extremism. both leaders warn that nations must fight the root causes of extremism and address those who feel marginalized. ♪ ♪ >> really strongly said you must go with us. and i was very fear. they took me to a place where

other hostages a camp with wires, a cage. i think the only thing happen to other people happen to you. so, of course, i was very afraid. >> we just arrived at the restaurant. it's not almost five minnesotas. suddenly the boom was -- [inaudible] and in that time i don't know if it's bomb or earthquake. just like boom and then everything is very very dark. i realized that my hand was burning, and i tried to put out the fire, but it was very very traumatic for me because every two days you have to change your bandage because i have 23% burn

on my body. it's on my hand and my back. >> i should have taken -- [inaudible] but the night before a friend of mine phoned me and she told me he was going to pick me up at a different station so that i could wake up later. so this is what i did. and my brother took the train -- ♪ ♪ >> [inaudible] [speaking in native tongue]

>> this is bano a shed enjoying summer camp. only hours later, she would be killed along with 68 others. >> so good morning, all. that video very briefly, are some of the images of terror and much of rationale for our being here today. nobody wants the good to die

young, and we all have an enormous obligation, an enormous responsibility to find the ways to meet this scourge. this is the ministerial component of these several days here in washington. and i want to thank everybody. i know that the schedule of any minister in government today is enormously challenging. so for all of you to come here and spend this much time is really a reflection of the deep commitment and concern about the challenges that we face. at white house yesterday, local practitioners and civil society leaders from around the world gathered to highlight the community-led efforts that can prevent terrorist recruitment and infiltration. there's been a silly debate in the media in the last days about sort of what you have to do. you have to do everything.

you have to take people off the battlefield who are there today, but you're kind of stupid if all you do is do that and you don't prevent more people from going to battlefield. so we have a broad challenge here. and mostly it is to talk about facts and realities and to take those realities and put the hem into -- put them into a real strategy that we all implement together. no one country no one army, no one group is going to be able to respond to this adequately. and we see that in the numbers of countries that are now being touched by it. so our goal today is to build on the discussions of the last two days by looking at ways both to address the most alarming threats that we face but also to get practical to strengthen the role of civil society. in mar, women. -- in particular, women, youth and victims. and to insure that civil society

has the space to be able to operate. we need to identify and amplify credible voices, expanding religious and other education that promotes tolerance and peace and respect for all religions. we need to address the social, economic and political marginalization that is part of this challenge. when i was recently in a country in northern africa, the foreign minister there over a good dinner told me about the challenge of a certain portion of their population where young people are just prosthelytized and captured at a very young stage, paid money in some cases. and once their minds are full of this invective and this distortion, they don't need to pay them anymore. but what was chilling was this foreign minister said to me they don't have a 5-year strategy, they have a 35-year strategy. and so we have to come together and say what's our strategy, how

are we going to respond? our goal today is to take this chance to think broadly about how to prevent viability ideologies from taking hold and how to prevent terrorist networks such as isil or boko haram or any group of other names from linking up with aggrieved groups elsewhere and how to prevent them from thereby expanding their influence. this morning i expect that the secretary-general and president obama will urge us to push ahead as far and as fast as we can to the work on the -- to develop the work streams that we have already identified. and some of our efforts are going to take place in public gatherings such as this. but i think everybody here understands that much of this work is going to be done quietly, without fanfare in classrooms in community

centers, in workplaces in houses of worship on urban street corners and in village markets. in the months to come we will have regional summits and i'm sure we'll have other events which will gauge the progress and measure the next steps. and in new york this fall our leaders will come together as a group. but between now and then we must all contribute, and our collaboration and our cooperation must be constant. we need to remember that our adversaries don't have to cope with distractions. they don't have a broad set of responsibilities to fulfill. they don't have the same institutional responsibilities that we do to meet the needs of our citizens. terror is their obsession. it's what they do. and if we let them, their singleness of purpose could

actually wind up giving them a comparative advantage. but with the images of recent outbreaks fresh in our minds, everybody here knows we simply can't let that happen. we have to match their commitment, and we have to leave them with no advantage at all. and this morning we will given with a session devoted to a single word, "why." why do people make what to many of us would seem to be an utterly wrongheaded choice and become kind of terrorists that we're seeing? it's a question that we need to approach with humility but also with determination. because you cannot defeat what you don't understand. certainly, there is no single answer. in our era poisonous ideas can come from almost anywhere, from

parents, teachers friends, preachers, politicians, from the pretty woman on a radical web site who lures people or the man in the next cell who process thelytizes while in prison. they might grow from pictures seen on the nightly news or from acts of discrimination or repression that you don't think much about on the day of occurrence, but which come back to haunt. it could come from the desire to avenge the death of a loved one. in some cases they may come from a lost job or from the contrast between one family's empty dinner plate and a fancy restaurant's lavish menu. the poison might even come from within in the form of rebellion against anonymity the desire to belong to a group, people who want a moment of visibility and identity or the hunger for black and white answers to problems that are very complex in a

remarkably more complicated world. we can all understand the search for meaning and doubts about authority, because at one time or another most of us have been there. but it's a huge leap between personal disquiet and committing murder mayhem. so let there be no confusion or doubt; what everyone's individual experience might be, there are no grounds of history religion ideology psychology, politics or economic disadvantage or personal ambition that will ever justify the killing of children the kidnapping or rape of teenage girls or the slaughter of unarmed civilians. the these atrocities -- these atrocities cannot be rationalized, they cannot be excused, they must be opposed, and they must be stopped. [applause]

whether in classrooms or houses of worship or over the internet or on tv, our message is very straightforward. to anyone who is in doubt, we can say with conviction to have no doubt there is a better way to serve god a better way to protect loved ones a better way to defend the community, a better way to seek justice, a better way to become known, a better way to live than by embracing violet extremism -- violent extremism. in fact, there is no worse way to do any of those things. our challenge then is not really one of martialing facts, because facts are wholly on our side. our task is to encourage the most credible leaders and spokespersons to penetrate the barrier of terrorist lies and to do so over and over and over again. we have to support the right

people saying the right things all the time. that also means that we have to be crystal clear in separating what we oppose from what we should always be eager to defend. we have to be steadfast advocates of religious freedom supporters of the right to peaceful dissent opponents of bigotry in every form and builders of opportunity for all. friends, our arms are open our minds are open to the ideas. the pickup against violent -- partnership against violent extremism that we are assembling has room for anyone who is willing to respect the fundamental rights and dignity of other human beings. and so it is appropriate this morning that we will be privileged to hear from the secretary-general of the united nations, an organization whose founding, purpose is to encourage us all to practice tolerance and live together in

peace. through these -- through its efforts at peace building, conflict resolution development, the u.n. has obviously been an invaluable contributor to the long-term battle against international terror and the global partnership that is represented here today. this effort is not something taking place outside of the u.n., this is to support the u.n. resolution and it's to support the efforts that we have all been part of for so long. in 2006 ban ki-moon was chosen to lead the u.n., five years later he was reelected. he has been a voice of healing and reconciliation. and despite the fact that the job of secretary-general is nearly impossible ban ki-moon has become known across the globe for his energy and his commitment, and it's my honor to present to you the secretary-general of the united nations, ban ki-moon. [applause]

>> honorable secretary of state john kerry, distinguished ministers, excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, i thank president barack obama and secretary of state john kerry for convening this very important gathering on preventing violent extremism and thank you for your leadership and strong commitment and eloquent speech and giving us a good way forward so that we can work together to defeat this violent extremism and terrorism and discuss how we can build upon what we have been doing so far. addressing this profound challenge in a manner that solves rather than multiplies the problem may be the greatest test for human family --

[inaudible] in the 21st century. let there be no doubt the emergence of a new generation of transnational terrorist groups including boko haram is a grave threat to international peace and security. these extremists are pursuing a deliberate strategy of shock and awful; beheadings burnings and -- [inaudible] designed to polarize and terrorize and provoke and divide us. the victims are as diverse as humankind itself. but let us recognize that the vast majority of the victims are muslims across a broad arc of disasters and distress. women and girls are subject to

appalling, systematic abuse rape kidnapping forced marriage, sexual slavery and other unspeakable horrors. no cause or grievance can justify such crimes. i commend member-states for their determinedded political will -- determined political will to defeat terrorist groups. we must do all what we can to neutralize the threat. that means responding decisively and concretely. but it also means being mindful of the pitfalls. many years of our experience have proven that shortsighted policies failed leadership and an utter disregard for human dignity and human rights have caused tremendous frustration

and anger on the part of people for whom we serve. we will never find our ways birdies carding our moral -- by discarding our moral compass. we need cool heads, we need common sense and we must never let fear rule. ladies and gentlemen, in that spirit i see four imperatives for our common efforts to protect people and uphold human dignity. first, preventing violent extremism demands that we get to the roots. looking for the motivation behind extremism is a notoriously difficult exercise, yet we know that poisonous ideologies do not emerge from thin air. oppression, corruption and injustice are greenhouses for

resentment. extremist leaders cultivate the alienation that festers. they are pretenders, criminals gangsters, thugs on the farthest fringes of the faith they claim to represent. yet they prey on disaffected young people without jobs or even a sense of belonging of where they were born. ..

counterterrorism separatists lack basic elements of due process and respect for the rule of law. sweeping definitions of terrorism are often used to criminalize legitimate actions of opposition groups civil society organizations, and human rights defenders. governments should not use the fight against terrorism and extremism as a pretext for attacking one's critics. we must of overreactions and we must not fall into those attacks. third, preventing extra ashman violent extremism means and all

that approach. military operations are crucial to confront the real threats but bullets are not the silver bullet. missiles may kill terrorists, but good governance kills terrorism. we must remember. missiles may kill terrorists but good governance kills terrorism. human rights, political participation are among our most powerful weapons. we must also teach our children compassion -- >> cybersecurity for a new america. i come out of foreign policy originally, so for me particularly foreign policy national security when i hear cybersecurity i think national security. i think defense. i think countries. i think the future of war in many ways.

and that is what a large am a people in this town think of when they think of cybersecurity. but, of course, recently when we think of cybersecurity we don't just think of countries but we think of companies, and we think about how those two things are intertwined because if we're talking about sony and cybersecurity were also talking about the united states and north korea. so now we think of cybersecurity as military but also commercial and how those things are intertwined. but, of course independently of national security, companies are worried about cybersecurity simply from a straightforward commercial point of view. so those two areas i think most people think art yes write down the fairway when you talk about cybersecurity. but that's only a part of the picture, and and a large part of what we're going to do is to lash back out. so the next place we think about cybersecurity, which is rarely

married, is consumers. so think about target, think about all the places in which consumers, all of those like me who go online and do most of our shopping online, hand out our information, consumer security is cybersecurity every bit as much. but then think also about students and job seekers. some of new america's cybersecurity work has been in libraries, the place where meal income people first encounter computers. and have very little idea about what security means. often they are either completely worried and afraid to do anything, which, of course haunts them in this world, or they have no sense of what the dangers are. so educating lower income people orville and to go to a middle-income people in frank a

lot of older people who are encountering the cyberworld for the first time, that is every bit as much cybersecurity. activists, activists in this country, activists around the world, people who are doing things that governments may not love our government, other governments, even people are doing things that corporations may not love, citizens. citizens cybersecurity is every bit as important as national high level cybersecurity. so thinking about cybersecurity in the context of all the different sectors of the united states come in thinking about how as we go forward to different kinds of complex a new economy, a new and much more active citizenry in a politics that has to be renewed. that's what we are thinking about when we talk about cybersecurity. there are lots of opportunities

here, as i just laid out. we've got lots of little silos. one of the first things new america wants to do is break down the silos and bring together people were think about cybersecurity, whether they use the term or not from multiple vantage points. we want to learn from all those sectors. we want to collect ideas from those sectors and think about the new ideas in terms of how we both conceptualize but also actually implement cybersecurity. we also want new voices. and as i've described there are many people who are working on cybersecurity from a citizens point of view, from activist point of you who very rarely actually talk to folks who are thinking about it from a national standpoint of you and yet we absolutely have to bring those new voices into the debate. the new america will remind you of all those things. i am president ceo. we bring together a tremendous

international security team but we also bring together the open technology institute with people who are working on consumer and citizen security, and more important sadly keeping the internet as open as we possibly can consistent with the demands of security for everyone. we are also trying to do this in from a multiply geographic perspective but a couple of people here from california were saying that they should have little circles on the badges to indicate that they are both tired and cold and certainly on the cold front. so we want to be doing this here in d.c. come in new york in california and we hope in other notes around the country bringing together new voices, big ideas technologies and policy experts from multiple places in the country. we also want younger voices.

in the state department outlook would always talk about digital natives and digital immigrant. i am a digital immigrant. most of the people are making decisions on cybersecurity our digital immigrant. we need a digital natives, we need many, many younger voices in this conversation. and we need media relationships that expand beyond the more specialized columns and policy outlets and journals that speak to a very specific group of people. cybersecurity has been demystified and talked about in the same way we would talk about any other major public issue, whether that is education or conflict or health. new america thinks about itself in terms of big ideas, in terms of being at the intersection of policy and technology, and in terms of being connected to communities. what we hope to do with our cybersecurity initiative is to

create networks, national networks with lots of new voices in with people who are not here but who can be an equal part of this debate. i want to do this national and we want to do this internationally. if i were staying in germany at the moment, this debate would look very different and the united states would not look wonderful. either from a national point of view or a commercial point of view or a consumer point of view. we want to do this internationally as well. we want to focus on big ideas. that is our trademark, and solutions. also, events that we can hold both physically as here in virtually. and, finally we want to think about how you implement actual solutions. so what are people doing on the ground in individual libraries or ngos or companies or cities? how are these different groups

thinking about cybersecurity but not just thinking about it actually doing it and how can we plug into those networks and learn from them. finally, i want to end with what we don't know and what we, a little note of humility. we obviously don't have all the answers, that's why we are starting what we hope will be a multiyear initiative. we are anxious to build networks and create a very inclusive project. we are well aware that there are other groups and universities and policy institutes, and we think in cities and in ngos working on these issues as they should be what i think of as a collaborative coalition. lots of people thinking about different dimensions of this problem. we also want to include the folks in the government who were thinking about these issues not

only national governments but again city governments, local in some places. and, finally in terms of we learning things and investing ideas that are not part of the current debate. it is essential to be convening unlikely bedfellows. it is essential to bring together the civil libertarians with the national security establishment, not just in terms of yes, we want everything to be consistent with everything else it's easy to say that. the problem of course there are really tough trade-offs to be made and what people who are advocating for lower income groups of various kinds and how they engage with the cyberworld talking to large corporations, just as example bringing a very diverse group of people together and we will be starting today and i, for one, a.m. very excited because i actually get to sit and listen and take notes and think. so with that i'm going to turn it over to our first panel and welcome and we're delighted to have you here. thank you.

[applause] >> good morning. my name is tim and i'm research fellow at new america and lead the america's obscure initiatives. i would like to first of all point you to the showcase room that you will find outside of the be all invite you to browse later on throughout the day, and it's my great pleasure in addition to our first top of the speaker. when you look at the agenda in your brochure you will see that throughout the day we've sprinkled individual speakers in addition to traditional analysts. and the idea is that we want to have more people speak at this event and exposure to interesting ideas and research. so the presentations of these individual speakers will be quite short and i invite you to grab them throughout the day if you have further questions. with that i like to introduce you to -- who is an i.t.

specialist with ics project and will talk about what is it like to be hacked for your beliefs? dlshad othman? [applause] >> good morning, everyone. it's a little bit of cold today, but, for what is it like to be hacked for your beliefs? i believe to contact nus is different than to get hacked in europe or in the middle east, especially nowadays. so we go through kind of like my personal story and why i'm here in the u.s. today. so backing 2011 i used to live in beautiful damascus and at that time the civil movement part at the beginning of 2011 and a lot of people they joined the civil movement when it was more peaceful.

and also these people they were really aware about how our government is really strong regarding the civilians and the technology they had, and they still actually regarding civilians and all control for the internet and infrastructure. at the time the syrian government used to block all social networks, and only the people with a good background knowledge with knowledge of cybersecurity, they had access to the social networks because it was all blocked. in a movement in march 2011, the syrian government removed all blocks on the social network, and these people were like they needed to see what's going on. they joined a social network and it became really huge movement. it was good for the government because they were collecting information but it was not it was not only for collecting information but it was not only for social engineering perspective but it went more deep into cyberattacks.

back to june 2011 in old damascus, i got a chance to meet one of the british journalist that came to film to film about the civil movement, shaun micheel to work for channel four, and he asked me actually if he can join me in training i used to do for activists employers back at that time. teach them exactly how to protect themselves online. he filmed that but there was kind of an agreement between us like okay i will allow you to film this but at the same time you have too i mean interceptor dead and let me teach out to interceptor data. you are here on a tourist visa and they can't just arrest you for any matter. i taught him how to encrypt is that and he's the liquor -- he's a filmmaker.

a lot of people, a lot of very important -- october 18 it was 1 a.m. at night. i received a message from a mutual friend and he was assisting sean that sean mcallister got arrested and i would have to go hide myself because they arrested a lot of people that they worked with and they got his storages, his backups. i asked him data was encrypted they got access to the video? yes, the cut taxes to be. actually he did not encrypt anything but it was kind of like underestimating the power of government back at that time. in a very famous official in damascus he was have a conversation with other guys and both of them got arrested. he is still in jail until today. he was arrested for three months and they released her and they removed her from the country because she's not syrian.

if you're talking that cybersecurity for activists, actually it is important to know that technology date is really helping. technology is playing two roles and there are very to the important rules to it is connecting people to the other side a lot of technologies that they are helping governments to accept information. i believe now in the new modern movement governments get access more to the information than before. a lot of companies, blue coat which is a u.s.a. company, i mean, it was the main provider for technology for the syrian government, which allowed the government to get access, even to know the encrypted data that we were transferring between, transferring in surrey. for example, a very simple face recognition technology that facebook users, imagine that technology are actually in the

hands of the syrian government how powerful that can be. today isis another know if you've heard isis -- between ensuringassuring government which they started developing malware after six months of their social engineering. isis started with the malware recently and here they are very active. they have access more than the syrian government because they're not under sanctions. so here we are. i moved to the u.s. it's a group of engineers trying to connect people on the ground with technology makers here in the u.s. in different places. explaining to them that this technology is good to use but you have to improve this technology to make it better tell people. at the same time we are trying

to protect people on the ground by teaching them. i just want to mention it's not only syria. it's half of the world that's been ruled by governments like the syrian government and many other governments. so today i can see the threat is not only they are not only threatening seeing people by threatening everybody outside. we have seen recently how isis was active online at the same time the syrian army was active online. technology is so fast. i see a lot of growing up in a technology that at the same time i see there is a missed connection between all of these departments. ethics at the what led us to problems that we face in syria. so i hope conferences like this event, like this will bring people from different places of the dr. chubb and understand better. thank you so much. [applause]

>> many thanks, dlshad, not like to invite the first to now join us on stage. [background sounds] >> good morning, everyone. my name is seeta pena gangadharan, i'm a senior research fellow with new america's open technology institute. for the past three and a half years i've spent a great deal of time working with groups and researchers on the topic of the digital divide. and today's discussion entitled

is cybersecurity the next digital divide will have us thinking about the concept of cybersecurity anymore everyday context. what does the common person experience and think about in relation to physical safety and security? it's not often as anne-marie slaughter was mentioning, that we use this term in relation to the potential for misuse our access to information. my information as it transits from one person to another. in addition to thinking about the common person we will spend some time thinking about society's most marginalized members, people who don't have

access, not just a technology but to many basic needs. and we're going to do that by engaging three panelists who have thought long and hard about what it means to be secure how to engineer a design for security, and what's at stake. joining us are tara whalen, staff privacy analyst at google and nonresidential fellow at the stanford center for internet and society. seda gurses, a postdoctoral fellow at new york university. and daniel kahn gillmor, technology fellow with the aclu speech privacy and technology projects. all of you have a background in computer sciences computer scientist by training, and have

been involved in policy debates thinking about security and privacy. so want to dive right in. as i mentioned i spent a lot of time working on issues of the digital divide looking at the long-term unemployed recent hints of public assistance, typically older adults perhaps individuals who have limited english thinking skills, low levels of literacy. for example and low access to the internet. for example, the national telecommunications and information administration reported last year that 30% of households in america still do not have access to the internet, access to high speed broadband. are these individuals were on the quote-unquote wrong side of

the digital divide, are the more secure because they are not connected to digital services or digital infrastructure? >> well, so access to the internet and broadband is only one piece of the puzzle in terms of connection to the digital infrastructure. many of the people who are in these households look like they have mobile phones and certainly surveillance can take place on the mobile phone network as well as the internet. in terms of people being more safe because they don't have internet access, i think there's surely no guarantee there. and for the population that you mention it people who are in positions of employment, people who have other demands on their time, often things like a mobile phone that has to be on all the time and survive some level of tracking and other kinds of surveillance concerns, they said they have to submit to them in

order to go about their everyday life. so the lack of access to internet itself i think is not, doesn't provide any sort of security guarantees for those people. >> seda or try to? >> i could get also people want to get themselves involved, they want to build a group to get -- and being connected help you build a kind of crude. you were not only able to put much of which are vital but you can have -- information was to be put on about you. it may be harder for you to become engaged with the productivity which doesn't help with your security as well. >> maybe it's interesting in addition to the digital divide make a distinction between surveillance divide and the privacy divide in the sense that some communities are more likely to be subject to surveillance regardless of whether it is based on the devices or

surveillance of the community cameras and the police and i think we know from studies that women are also more likely to be subject to surveillance or harassment online. so i think there's a divide as to what surveillance means to different communities. there's a second bite into the privacy divide in the sense of who has access to an understanding of what it means to protect their privacy and to claim the rights with respect to privacy. i don't think these groups necessarily overlap. >> so we will come back to that idea of your community connections and security but i actually want to ask if you can describe gene what does it mean to be secure? if i'm walking into a public library and speaking to a group of people who haven't access technology very frequently or on their own terms, what does it mean? >> so i think there's some basic

things that you like to have for communication security companies that making sure that your imitation is only readable by the person who sent it. acting anonymously, being able to be part of communities that are not necessarily under direct surveillance by an adversary. all of these sort of things are ways to think about securing your communications and the communities that you live in. not just the individuals but also the communities. technology are fully -- technologically, provides encryption anonymity services but it also has to do with sort of behavioral patterns, patterns of thinking about where are the two forms of surveillance like seda mentioned, where those show up in terms of the other pieces

of surveillance that you may not be thinking of. >> is that your same take on what technical security meets? >> you have done some great work to show that the fundies are absolutely insecure, and there's been a great failure and the market of the parties responsible for getting the phones to us to make sure that they are secure and not just making us vulnerable in fact he said a lot of the for a lot of communities their only access to the internet is going to be through the phones actually makes them more vulnerable to these kinds of security weaknesses that are embedded in our current system of information. but i think we need to maybe take a wider look at what it means to be informationally secure. i think that one thing is to make sure that the data that emanates from the individual is somehow security through the phone or the medications possiblypossible using encryption, make sure that the eavesdropping.

anonymity means they can use services without nasa identify themselves. i think we need to go beyond. data breaches is also a matter of your technical security, and the companies that have breached databases should be reporting back and letting the individuals know, and i think there are serious concerns with some of the new information sharing legislation leading to let's are moving some of the liability and what the impact of what that will be on these communities. i think information security is also being informed about how your data is collected and having the choice to use services without having your information collected. and i think it's also a lot about how information is used profile individuals or used to let's say assign their environment. what we see right now is a lot of data mining and data being

used as an access to truth and a way of making decisions in policymaking. data becomes kind of the lens through which we look at the world but we know that especially for communities that don't have a good representation, that the impact of data mining on them could be very different than on those communities that with a better understanding of what the data points are, what they mean what they stand for. so there's a different impact on different emerged that we are not even able to properly articulate it. i think this is also part of technical security. >> at just a little on to it about the impact on communities. so you talked about people unemployed, so the information security that plays a broader level of security i think in people's lives for things like job security and physical security, the information about you for your communication, and

maybe think you put on a social network that you did know how to configure to allow the groups you want to see certain information see it. this can go beyond just as information into your broader lies. a strong impact on someone who is in a mobilize community. >> so it sounds like what you're talking about is that technical security is really not a sufficiently to think about security among vulnerable communities. >> it's a precondition. having a device that apple insecure which her bones you can talk about that in detail maybe later them is basically a bad precondition for having anything about that. so it's a precondition. >> let's actually talk about that now. what needs to happen to the technologies, the devices themselves? you know what constitutes a secure mobile phone?

>> i don't know that we have one yet. >> so in your ideal world what does it look like? >> well, they should not just the devices so that the network is connected to. and so to save we can make a secure has hesitant if the handset is connecting to broader infrastructure that itself enables all kinds of tracking opportunities and metadata collection and eventually content collection, then the device can it doesn't matter what the device is to some of these questions ultimate commuters at an infrastructural level. it's not enough to say we can build this one tool. if you want people to be able to secure communications, the fun of network and protocol those networks use the ways the devices talk to each other online, those mechanisms need to be secured and they need to provide people with the ability to have confidential communicate should and ability to operate

privately on the network. it has a built-in of that kind of all saints analysis into these tools is actually make it would involve massively insecure. it's not possible, and this is sort of well understood within the internet community that is not possible to actually engineer broadscale surveillance mechanisms to allow just the good guys to surveil. you can't build a protocol can't build the networks in such a way that allow access to one group of people that think are the good guys and simultaneously keep out the actors that we might think are the various. to these were quick to have networks that have security built in at the level of the way we define them. >> so that's interesting because when i thought about the question of making cybersecurity more accessible to members of low income communities or

vulnerable populations, the thing that immediately comes to mind is the question of usability, right? so had spent time in the field where i'm observing people in the classroom, usually older adults again, someone, you know, that has limited language, english language skills who spends, someone who spends at least three classes literally trying to figure out how to drag the mouse from one side of the computer screen to the other right? so that's the first bit. the second it usually the last five weeks of the class, is in understanding what in the world is a username? and the password. and so what i've seen is, you know just like this complete

cognitive dissident ask you what is mean to have an identity online, you know, people are definitely choosing insecure passwords, something that is easy to remember. and if you have low literate skills are limited english skills, you're going to pick something that is much easier to remember that a computer could decipher quite easily. you are more than likely sharing your password and username with other individuals because you've not done this before. and some usability, i mean it seems like an obvious thing to really focus on. i guess i am hearing that's not -- >> i think we shouldn't have usability with secured infrastructure against one another. i think we need both. are we to say that the infrastructure needs to be built in a secure way is not at all to

say that we should discard of usability. i agree with you this is sort of a concern. but like we have usable tools like mobile phones that people understand and learn how to use people who have a low technology literacy. the fact usable it doesn't solve the security problem. >> interesting. >> seda or try to? >> it is a subject near and dear to my heart. usability fun it is important i say obviously i agree with daniel, it comes down to a matter of priorities as to what things we focus on. these are not very hard problems but i think some of the issues we're still grappling with come with a large number of users with this background levels of expertise and people of disabilities questions around age, literacy can all of these issues come into how well are we

serving our user population but we are working on a. i put a lot more discussions in the last tigers or so and we've been hearing this talk about a lot more so i'm hoping that or there are more people were prepared to work on this issue work on the research side work and putting money into initiatives. ebony few recently i guess security mount and was the reset it did something. they put together a set of tools for people that were supposedly easier to use. so it was an effort shall we say to give people a set of tools that there identified as easy just to they did have to go in the world to figure out things themselves. so i'm hoping we cracked some of these problems but they are difficult or even something like the certificate has been issue for what these people understand things break. it's difficult to explain nuances in which -- is this a

risk? i'm not sure what went wrong? i'm not entirely sure. how much information we give you see to make an informed decision? these are difficult problems and there have been incremental steps towards improving things and we haven't actually cracked this. ideally you wouldn't end up in a situation where a person can make this decision but we all know systems are not perfect and they break. we need to support people when things break down. >> there's a very hard word to pronounce that will help us to analyzeanalyze this problem it was picking up and it's called responsible as a nation -- >> i agree. >> in very very short description it's about encouraging individual to manage the risk themselves and for increasing asking individuals to manage their risk. this comes as a result of organizations, companies governments streamline their processes most likely potential

information systems which incurs certain a risk that these risks are not taken over by the organization that extra lives to individual users. so what we're doing for example, is still collecting data and other risk associate with that, external icing to the users thing you did want to be part of this issue to protect yourself. so we are pushing a lot of pushing a lot of responsibility on to the user saying if you think there are risks become in your direction as a result of new information technology, you are responsible for protecting yourself from it. this is very problematic, of course. we've done projects in the past, instead of burdening the users with protecting their privacy we should ask phone companies or whoever is making the phones were using to give them secure phones we should make sure that the network is secure in a way that your communications cannot be these dropped -- eavesdropped on. maybe partner and i think in

the case of like usernames and for a lot of sites that are asking for username and password when they don't need to. you can do those anonymous without giving information but they were pushing people to sign in and to be uniquely identified, incurring more risk. and in some cases i think there is a risk in terms you want to be logging in and securing a recommendation with that organization which is getting his services but they are not securing their service and celtic they're asking security questions like what is your mother's maiden name, which is usually public information? and then saying the users are responsible for not taking care of keeping their mothers maiden name private can which is again burdening the user with bad security design but i think there's a lot to unpack there. >> someone to come back to a theme that daniel had imagined earlier. i think you were referring to i mean, i'm hearing that there's a

shared responsibility that seems to exist. and you had earlier pointed to this idea that a community right, that we shouldn't be thinking about individual security, but a community is part of the process. and i'm wondering what that looks like what that entails in both the work that you've done as a developer of open-source tools and in your work at the aclu? >> so there are many different ways that they committed security can be impacted by the tools that they use and recommendations that they use. i guess there's at least two different ways i like to answer the question and i will try to be brief. one what is for a tool to be developed in a way that benefits the users, those users, the

people developing the tool need to be engaged with the user base. the user base needs to get feedback. how you establish those communication channels and encourage people to contribute in those ways, to the tools that they rely on is a tough question. i think we need more people were to try to get those communication channels open and value that kind of feedback. another way that i think, the communities themselves, there's also we can to surveillance of a commute that doesn't amount to surveillance of any one individual. this is a separate question about how do we secure a community. i think we need to also think about the ways that communities have marginalized people. so, for example, lgbt communities and places that have homophobic laws or homophobic culture and ways of communicating with each other. and rather than just serve in any one individual you can book

is a bit of the community itself and build up information based on the pattern as a whole. and so whether any one individual within that committee has protected information, the fact they're still participating highlights them as potential target and that itself is a risk. the are sort of two ways i want to make sure the committee aspects gets brought up. >> so that suggests that we need a broader base of people using secure technologies. i want a reality check as to where we are at, because i heard you say something about hypotheticals. and tara you also making of a lot to do. so what's the state of the market, for example, with regards to secure technologies? i mean how many people are using, let's set aside the question of vulnerable populations for second and just

understand the broad base of consumers that do practice you know, using encryption tools, tools that keep both individual and the community, i mean, what are we looking at here? >> it's interesting, at one level the user community is massive because there's already an infrastructure even if it's imperfect that already has a large amount of encryptions deploy. much of this we don't necessarily see. is not the same as decided going to download a particular tool to add another level of encryption to your instant message or two off the record messaging or a particular tool but you already sort of embedded. sweat one level it's all of the people who are already using it. that's probably not what you're talking about but we do we need to remember the already a bunch

of people who are taking advantage of these tools who may and may not realize the degree to which they are using the tools that are already out there. i don't have a good read on who's using the other to the tools that are little more the off beaten path, say. it can be covered are people who've had an incident happen to them and they suddenly decide it's something need to do. they are maybe people are part of a larger communities who have brought this forward taking more care on the medications. i think in those groups we are not seeing maybe the diversity that you might see in the broader community that he mentioned earlier who are already using tools. if you look at some of the developer communities where there's volunteer labor. so the way you about these tools is because you involve in a committee to the diversity is not particularly large. daniel may want to add a bit more to this. and the numbers are pretty low and among those, for example the number of women who are participating is low.

anyone who isn't a group in which they are marginalized, for example, pretends not to access to resources to participate in free labor market. you are someone who has multiple jobs someone is taking care of children. you may not have the ability to decide you're going to sit down and dedicate a few more hours a week to develop a tool. this is exactly the sort of people who we are speaking with them for trying to bridge that gap i think would be an interesting challenge. if you want to hear from the users and not just the people who feel they know what the users want you do have to involve people to design with people and not just for people. i am intrigued to see how we might bridge that gap. >> data, how good or bad? >> the diversity within the developer community, it's terrible. >> and also with the user community. >> well, so the thing about looking at the user punitive,

particularly for privacy preserving tools but that often the user community don't want to identify themselves because they're interested in protecting the privacy. so there's a bit of a chicken and egg problem in determining that the developers who build tools that do actually want to the you probably don't collect a ton of information so it's hard, that with his hard edge but i suspect numbers are relatively low, certainly compared to get out of network users over all. >> seda? >> maybe it's good to distinguish like three types of use that is out there right now. one is basically what we pop we know as -- basically protects the committee nation between you or your device and the service provided that you are sinking to. those are important to talk about men and their division

now. the next one, and that's been being increase in use on fun than tablets is man at the end attacks. so those are so that's when companies use encryption to put controls over what we can do with the devices that we are using. and those two amenity and encryption used is quite popular, getting more popular. the man in the middle is getting more popular due to also increase privacy concerns and then there's a third type which is kind of what you guys were talking about with the developer commits increase software and the lack of diversity and the miniscule number of users and that's what apple for now call end to end encryption. these are three mates the man in the middle, man at the end end end to end. it's not perfect but let's try in this kind of classification. and what happened in the last

two months, which is rather let's say worrying is that we had a number of government officials speak against the into to end encryption. and its possible popularization through applying end to end companies applying end to end into a wider user base. so apple said it would provide an application to their users using i message. google started developing something that we haven't yet seen deployed, and facebook said that they would integrate this into what's up your croissant government officials react very identically saying that this would mean law enforcement would not be able to do their jobs. i think we would also banned encryption against man in the middle attacks which was not well received, and obama said something similar, even maybe

stronger. he said people with companies will be viable if because of the use of end to end encryption they would find out that an attack happened or somebody was harmed. sending the message to companies in my opinion that they should not implement these technologies. so i think that the old economy of where in kuching gets applied and where it is encouraged and discouraged and would like to see into and encourage. one way to do that is have organizations with a large user base implement it properly not like i message, but that's another detail and make sure it is available for the privacy user to we haven't seen that happen. >> i want to respond let's talk about that later maybe because i am actually interested in the quality of the security that end users are receiving. so one thing that has been of

concern, particularly in marginalized communities, is that stuff that they choose across the board doesn't work. it's of low quality, right? so i'm wondering, you know, are we at risk of seeing a tools develop and deployed that are not quite protecting us as much as they should be? and i will come back to some of these larger questions, but i think from the perspective of the marginalized communities that i've worked with, that is a very prominent concern. >> are you getting what you think you're getting? >> there are very few tools that are providing people with full anonymity and confidentiality and privacy protection. there are often gaps in terms of

what i would call key management. how you identify the remote party to communicate with. it can be kept in metadata analysis. there can be simply bad encryption of if are using encryption mechanism that we know to be broken or to be substandard. so i think the communities you work with are rightly concerned that what they're getting doesn't maybe live up to the level of security that they want to that said, there are tools that are out there that are a significant step up and you know seda mentioned https three years ago https traffic was a small fraction was going on on the internet. and now even look at all web traffic, it is significant margin it needs to be. many people who run websites have decided we need to be doing

this to they should be the default, this should be the new standard like why we sending clear text in an encrypted commuters across the internet in the first place with the within that does is put our users ourselves at risk their so this doesn't all the way to the end to end encryption that seda is pushing for but it is a step up and it does protect users against certain kinds of attacks. now, there are still failures. i don't know if people in the part about the nobel supervision incident last week? that was an attack against https? so when no permit so anyone who bought a the noble machine and outs of mike lee click yes on the license agreement on just to be clear who he reads all of the licensing agreements? wow? totwo people, three people okay. so that's very rare. it is usually zero. so if you click yes and join a new trend they would actively

intercept all of the communications going on. https is getting better and better, more widely deployed with are still attacks that can happen. so i think we need to be that attack happened because people picked the machines are given by the end and vendor and they just used in the way that everyone normally uses to 20 to make sure we have an eye on that kind of situation situation. >> thanks for asking the crowd about their doing a crowd check. actually i'm really curious to see a show of hands in the realm of how many people are working directly with more mobile communities are marginalized populations? we have a few in the back as well. so for the benefits of those who raised their hands in the back of the realm, and myself as

well, i've heard you talk about usability. effort to talk about protocol and infrastructure. i've heard you mention the role of government and both as barriers and opportunities. so for those of us who are working with affordable communities pashtun vulnerable communities can what is the greatest opportunity we have to institute more secure technologies? was going to get us to a place where these tools are easy-to-use? what should we be hopeful for? >> i think what we would be hopeful for is if we can get a

bit more a beginning of an adoption from a wider adoption of the tools but i think we're getting a bit of we are hearing more from users are expressing a desire, behavior but tools that they might want that might be useful to them it. if we can begin to break down some of these barriers, what i'm hoping is we'll hear from voices that we did hear from before that will give us actual information about what people need rather than what it is when we didn't talk to, filled in our imagination rather than bring you into our groups. so i'm hoping i'm hopeful that there will be perhaps more funding for things like this more available for projects to be funded to look into usability issues, to look into seriously tackling some these gaps with. people are managing the complex projects for larger communities on shoestrings. are very good dedicated and very expert personnel who are just asked to do a wide front of very

complicated tasks to the best of their ability. they may not have the resources to do testing to bring in people need to be doing the testing with them. so if they had a bit more of that i would hope that the tools would improve, that there's more dissemination of these. maybe have user support to people who were not going to jump on an irc channel whenever problem but might want to have a close relationship with someone who can talk them through their problems. so this is my hope. i recognize that a lot of large challenges but i am often -- optimistic that we will perhaps move closer to that so the ideal of tools that are more available to a wider group of people and give them the security that they're actually looking for. >> okay. well i think i'm going to look at it more structurally, and i think i'm going to come back to

some of the proposals for cybersecurity. what we see in the cybersecurity strategies, if you look at the research and develop strategy and also execute order it's a move away from securing critical infrastructure to making it resilient. if i could very shortly describe that saying, we cannot add security to the network that we have because the add-on we thought about it is too late so we should not rely on security. instead, we should try to make communities where systems are critical infrastructure adaptable to attack. so let's take a tax data breach is a given, lots of security breach is given of them from past mistakes by surveilling everything all the time so we can recognize when bad attacks a tactic would happen in the future. resilience is into since the failure of the state, is a

project replaces the philly of the state that provides secure citizens and the people living within its sovereign borders and putting the responsibility again tonight responsibility, on individual community to secure themselves or take precautions. that would also go to private to a private entity companies. i think in this gang to disenfranchise more probable communities are going to lose even more because they operate don't have the resources to protect themselves. and that the government is going to come and say why don't you make us of a little bit more resilient? and i think the structural point that we need to look at here is a very careful move towards civilians in saying that not everybody is going to have equal resources to make themselves resilient, or maybe think about security is something that we keep with us and not give up on. >> i want to say my response i think in terms of what can

benefit the entire network and we definitely need extra security for marginalized communities. but one concern about trying to provide targeted extra security support at the technical level to marginalize committees is that it highlights who is active. ..